Political Polarization...and Cheating

The Supreme Court has just allowed to stand the independent redistricting commission that the voters in Arizona established, to take rabid partisanship out of the drawing of state and federal districts. Republicans who control the AZ legislature say the Constitution gives them the right to draw congressional districts, and they cannot be cut out of the power.  California is the only other state that has diminished the legislature’s role similar to Arizona, but 11 other states have created commissions that have some sort of say about reapportionment.

I have long railed against gerrymandering, which is only the most blatant of a dozen ways that modern political parties have found to cheat voters. Nothing more spectacularly proved the stunning dogmatic partisanship of justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito more than they way they have blocked (till now) any serious judicial review of these hijackings of sovereign citizen will.

While both parties commit such crimes, the cheating is not balanced or equally distributed.  While yes, there are blue states where gerrymandering creates contorted, illogical and nasty district boundaries – Maryland and Illinois rise almost to the level of creativity of Texas and Georgia – it should be noted that it is in blue states that mostly democratic-leaning populations have rebelled against the practice, rebuking their own favored party's pols. Of the 13 states where voters have pushed back against gerrymandering, twelve are blue. 

(A ratio similar to those states that have been pulling out of the insane Drug War. Powerful examples of the "name an exception" challenge.)

So, why has the Court only taken tepid measures against a supremely blatant crime?

“The Supreme Court has largely stayed out of partisan gerrymandering cases, unable to agree on a test that would allow the court to discern when expected political maneuvering rises to the level of being unconstitutional.”

But it does not have to 'get embroiled'!  Nor is there even a need for impartial redistricting commissions!  All that is called for is one simple rule, that can be expressed in a single sentence. This one rule would not completely end gerrymandering… but it would render it moot and useless as a rampant method for stealing sovereignty and choice from American voters. It leaves a state legislature as the locus of boundary drawing, yet would render them ineffective at robbing citizens of their rights. 

THE RULE: District boundaries shall be drawn in such a way that (1) strives to minimize the ratio of perimeter to area and (2) minimizes OVERLAP between the districts for the state assembly, state senate and U.S. Congress.   

What this means is that a state legislature can gerry their own state assembly districts to benefit the majority party… go ahead! But all this will do is ensure that the boundaries for state senate and Congress are not optimized for partisanship.  Your state senator will have to consider different sets of neighborhoods and needs and alliances than the assemblywoman, making democracy more thoughtful and prone to negotiation.  The upshot? They can only be callously cheating-partisan in one of the three houses.  The others will represent the people in inherently different ways. At least one of which will turn out to be fair.

Above all, this reform does not require a grinding process of establishing one “commission” after another, or “agreeing on a test that would allow the court to discern when expected political maneuvering rises to the level of being unconstitutional.” 

Think about this win-win... only then also take note of this.  NOTICE which party cheats far more than the other.  Ask yourselves why it’s been arranged that all the companies that make voting machines are controlled by rabid GOP partisans.  And why is it that – in red states – there usually is no provision for those voting machines to leave an independent record that can be precinct-audited. Hence, the programmers of that machinery can arrange for any outcome they desire.

 Sure, there are corrupt democrats!  But they have not turned cheating into a passionately-dedicated matter of party principle, policy and disciplined practice.

== Cheaters – cheaters – cheaters ==

What America would look like without gerrymandering? Not just congressional but also the insane system of gerrymandering state boundaries. (We have two Dakotas? Seriously?  Why? Except that Republicans were cheaters in the 1890s, as well as now? And why don't we have Kansaska and New Mexizona?) In fact, this map and the writer’s kind of algorithmic approach is flawed.  It ignores too many human and geographical factors. 

A coming Supreme Court decision might remove nonvoters from consideration in district boundary creation -- gerrymandering on steroids? States currently count the entire population - rather than just eligible voters - to create congressional districts. 

Now here’s an interesting take on the matter: conservatives often demand that we take into account the Framers intent, when interpreting the Constitution. Indeed, the Framers clearly and decisively meant for non-voting persons in a district to be counted in determining representation!  Not only women citizens – who could not vote - but also 3/5ths of any non citizen… which um meant slaves.  

Am I actually citing the heinously cynical “3/5ths Rule” in arguing FOR the enumerating and counting of non-citizens in modern districting?  Yeow! I really don't know where that dog will hunt. But it makes my head hurt with unusual implications.  And I always like that sensation.

Try it, some time.

== Funding Political Campaigns ==

The dilution of fairness and election rules during Republican rule was exacerbated by recent court decisions that opened US politics to the highest bidders. "Citizens United v. FEC, allowing corporations to make unlimited expenditures on behalf of federal candidates. Already, the Associated Press reported, spending on this off-year election has topped $1 billion — and it may exceed $4 billion by the time the votes are in."

See: Campaign contributions should be anonymous. This article from The Washington Post is wrongheaded in many ways but still informative.  

We used to try to reduce the role of raw money by  (1) regulating contributions, (regulating campaign spending, (2) offering free access to some media, rules equalizing access by and, finally (3) - transparency… at least allowing the public to see the money flows and take them into account. The cynical author says: "But has transparency ever been an effective corruption-fighting tool? Many people deeply involved in electoral politics don’t think so."

The piece turns into stunning sophistry when it proposes that donors should be hidden, in order to eliminate their quid pro quo influence on politicians: "What if we made all campaign contributions and independent expenditures anonymous — and made sure they stayed anonymous?"

Does he honestly believe any reader would swallow such titanic malarkey?  That Sheldon Adelson cannot take "credit" for a contribution to a pol, in a myriad ways? This is one more spectacularly bald and shameless hired-rationalization by a court shill, to rationalize our march back to feudalism.

Of all the efforts to deal with the money-taking-over-politics problem, the most cogent and deserving of you support is probably Lawrence Lessig's rational approach.  Have a look.

== thinking less like citizens, more as “sides” in a war ==

The growth of partisan polarization has transformed US politics in recent decades, and the effects are especially visible in this graphic. It’s especially depressing, but also makes clear what we have to do.  To end gerrymandering and all the other cheats that have turned us into a nation of bile-spitting partisan radicals.  

Most partisans treat politics like sports rivalries, instead of focusing on issues. A report showed that 41 percent of partisans agreed that simply winning elections is more important to them than policy or ideological goals, while just 35 percent agreed that policy is a more important motivator for them to participate in politics.”

“When it came to uncivil attitudes, 38 percent of partisans agreed that their parties should use any tactics necessary to "win elections and issue debates." When those who agreed with this view were asked what tactics they had in mind, the most common ones they offered were: voter suppression, stealing or cheating in elections, physical violence and threats against the other party, lying, personal attacks on opponents, not allowing the other party to speak, and using the filibuster to gridlock Congress. Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to express this opinion.”

Really? Things have sunk so low that now BOTH sides think this?

 To which I respond impulsively that this is terrific news!  That democrats and Blue Americans are finally realizing negotiation and persuasion and compromise will not work, during a re-ignited phase of the American Civil War.  That the forces of the Union are at last willing to take off the kid gloves, as they finally decided to do, in 1861, after nine years of violent bullying by the nascent confederacy. 

All right all right… not really. I don't mean that.

In fact, I deplore this trend at all levels and in every way, especially condoning cheating.  But wrath toward the gerrymandering, vote-suppressing, vote-machine warping cheaters who started this dismal phase of American life? Right on. Their “team" cheats. It has elevated cheating to an art. And they have zero regrets.

== Finally…  ==

The fact that Dick Cheney is admired by even a single American is appalling proof of the delusional willpower of schizophrenia. Watch Jon Stewart's hilarious rant - tribute to Cheney laying the lying hypocrisy so bare that even the most-delusional among you Fox apologists will have to admit... this one should long ago have been given the boot. If not a ride on a tumbrel. 

“George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'…” Yeah… well… if by “God” you mean his masters in the Saudi Royal House. Whose orders he and Dick Cheney followed, to the letter, in all matters and top to bottom.  And who own and operate Fox News.  And who own and operate the GOP. And who are the actual “caliphate.”  

Oh, but it is all going according to plan.  We’ve entered the era of the New Pyramid, when society’s top aristocrats have nothing to spend their money on but status.  “A Pablo Picasso masterpiece smashed the world record for a painting sold at auction, fetching a fraction over $179 million (£116m).”  That same month, Christies handled a BILLION dollars in art sales.

 Eep. I blame you, Rupert. A nascent feudal oligarchy that is too stupid to read science fiction or history... and willfully ignores the blatant horizon (of pitchforks and tumbrels and designer viruses) where all of this must lead ... has already proved itself WAY too stupid to qualify for leadership over this century.  In EXISTENCE I show a scene portraying what smart oligarchs might do. Even those who (at an alpine meeting) do want a quasi feudal social order... but who also want to live. And I see no sign of this scenario coming true.

The truly smart bazillionaires -- who earned it with creative-innovative products and services -- know better.  They are willing to negotiate, in order to keep the enlightenment healthy.  They want to be rich all right, but in a vibrant and mostly-fair civilization that lifts all boats.  They are not on Rupert's team.

  

Blame the corporate boards... and change them.

I am going to jump in again, this time by simply snipping-in segments from the newsletter of tech-industry pundit Mark Anderson, perhaps his best missive yet!

I had dinner last week in Washington, D.C., with a top lobbyist, who told me proudly that she had led the charge in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. (This allowed banks to get involved with non-bank, high-risk activities.) I had heard that the bankers spent $1B to get rid of this iconic piece of learning from the Great Depression; she confirmed it. Ten years later she is 38, and she laughingly told me over hors d’oeuvres that she now recognizes it was a huge mistake, adding that she no longer represents the banks.

Oops. I guess that’s how you destroy empires. Which leaves the obvious unfortunate impression: the banks themselves must have known what a mistake this would be.
...
Yesterday, in a lunch discussion with serial entrepreneur Al Davis, we covered all this ground in about an hour, and then he said, “You know, this all comes down to the board of directors.” ...We can blame the regulators who really came from industry, we can blame the bankers and CEOs and their lobbyists, we can blame the politicians who pretended that no regulation was good regulation, we can blame co-presidents George Bush and Dick Cheney. But, with the exception of the last two, there is another layer of governance that should take most, if not all, of the responsibility: the board of directors.

Let me start by breaking the neck of the good-old-boy scheme: most board members are friends (or even relatives) of the CEO, or work for him or her. Those who are not – even the most independent “outside” directors – tend to be selected on a rank of the CEO’s ability to direct, manipulate, or intimidate them; OR because they are guaranteed not to look too closely at the company.

For example: AIG wrote insurance in amounts far greater than its total book value, or the value of all its reserves, creating liabilities infinitely beyond its ability to pay. Today, the now-defrocked longtime CEO Hank Greenberg continues to “protest too much” on TV: that he is the good guy, the government got it all wrong, if only he were still in charge all would be fine, the government wrecked his company, and so on.

How did Hank and his short-term successor, Milton Sullivan, get away with it all? It would appear, among other things, that they used the usual tricks: find famous, busy people who make you look good and have no time to dig deeply into company affairs; and make sure your board is too large, so that nothing ever really happens at board level. In AIG’s case, that number was 17, or about eight more than are really useful.

What about the board of Lehman Brothers? Or Bear Stearns? Who exactly authorized 30/1 leverage on contracts that no one could understand, in numbers beyond count? Some board members, from the Old Model, would say: Well, that’s a level of detail beyond what we were asked to look at.
...
Great companies don’t fail because of one madman; they fail because of one too-timid board. And great civilizations don’t fail because of one company gone awry; they fail because core beliefs and values fall away, which we’ve seen in the U.S. recently.

Terrific insights. Wish I could pass on the whole thing. Some followup questions, though.

1) What about the antitrust laws against interlocking directorates? Have you seen evidence that members of one board cozy up to their CEO in part because he can do the same on their boards? If so - and even if it is done third-hand, to mask things - should not people go to jail?

2) To what extent has CEO compensation skyrocketed because of what boils down to a "cartel"?
If a small clade of a few thousand golf buddies control and corner a market -- in this case for "top managerial talent" -- can't they thereupon curtail supply and create the appearance of scarcity, boosting prices just likeOPEC & deBeers?

The very theory of capitalism that these guys praise should have corrected these compensation packages by attracting fresh supplies of new talent into management, bringing competition and hauling prices down again. When something quacks like a cartel, waddles like a cartel, and smells like a cartel... should not some ducks be carted off to jail for restraint of trade?

More important, should not their praise of capitalism and markets be exposed as hypocrisy?

See also my article: The Contradiction of Capital Markets.

3) I have long felt that "corporate democracy" can be reformed with one simple change. Instead of current proxy-based stockholder voting, in which a vast majority of stock owners simply don't get involved -- favoring whoever is currently in charge, let blocks of stockholders self-organize. Any group that comes up with 20% of shares can send a director to the board. Ideally, you'd get five very different activists. But this way, you'll at least get two.

Hence the danger. If our present crisis lasts too long, the U.S. and the world and its people will suffer badly. But if it ends too soon... then not enough tumbrels will roll, things will remain the same, and civilization will fail to right itself with enough reforms.

What is Freedom?

==Various Takes on Freedom==

The whole issue of "freedom" boils down much deeper than the surface levels where it is usually discussed. Let me try to explain.

For 2,000 years the enemies of democracy, led by that infamous so-called “philosopher” Plato, have tried to undermine the Periclean experiment by couching the debate in terms that work to the detriment of freedom. In order to do this, they pulled many tricks. Foremost, they emphasized and concentrated on the LEAST important and least honorable aspect of democracy -- majority rule -- while downgrading the most important aspect (the one emphasized by Pericles) which is open and knowing reciprocal accountability.

As a matter of fact, majority rule has always been distrusted, even by the greatest innovators and thinkers of the democratic enlightenment! Read the Federalist Papers and you will find that the founders worried deeply about capricious mob passions -- of the same kind that helped to ruin Athenian democracy after Pericles was gone. According to the reasoning of Locke, the people must own ultimate sovereignty. But true freedom depends on something far more fundamental than “the people.”

It depends upon people. Individual people, taken one at a time. Empowered one at a time.

Think about it. You may live your entire life as a citizen of the republic and NEVER ONCE vote for a single candidate who wins election to high office. And yet, you remain an empowered citizen, if you are surrounded by tools that help you to hold everyone -- from neighbors to officers of the state -- accountable. Especially should any of them try to abuse you.

Yes, the government that is elected by the majority may thereupon pass many laws that you dislike, and you must obey them. But your ability to keep fighting and arguing and filing suit and petitioning against those laws -- that ability is every bit as crucial to a democratic and free civilization as majority rule is. Crucial not only to you, but to your neighbors, who know (in their guts) that someday the situation may be reversed. Therefore it is in their interest to protect your right to complain.

To KNOWINGLY complain. Because, as I said, not everything about freedom boils down to majority rule. Redress in the courts may happen, even if you are deeply unpopular and all alone. Moreover, there is always the possibility of slowly, persistently, speaking out until your neighbors change their minds. (Ask the suffragettes about this.)

Fundamentally, freedom is about an individual -- every individual person -- feeling empowered to know what is needed, in order to worry. And then feeling empowered to speak knowledgeably about those worries, applying accountability upon even the mighty. It is the empowerment that allows each of us to START down the road of persuading our neighbors to change their minds, and eventually to form new majorities, that vote in new directions, for new leaders.

The neocons used this process well, gradually hauling their movement back from the political wilderness after calamities in 1964 and 1974. They took pride in that fact.

And yet now, expressing a towering hypocrisy that is rooted all-too deeply in human nature, they seek to demolish the methodology that was available to them, when they were in the minority.

Think about it. Those who are trying to destroy democracy have very little fear of majority rule. History shows countless ways to subvert and suborn it, ways that Machiavelli described in The Prince and that Alcibiades and other demagogues used in wounded Athens.

On the other hand, reciprocal accountability is the part of Freedom that is most despised, undermined and feared by our new would-be masters. Indeed, it has little or nothing to do with liberal-vs conservative or right-vs-left. (Want irony? The neo-right is today replicating many of the techniques once employed by revolutionary communist parties of the past, in Russia, China and Cuba. Proving that both the left and right can nurture monsters.)

Plato hated Reciprocal Accountability and went to great lengths to distract from its lesson, preaching for rule by an elite of “philosopher kings” who may (according to Plato) lie and evade all accountability, in the same fashion that was preached-for by BOTH Lenin and Leo Strauss, father of today’s neoconservative movement.

This trend manifests, within the present administration, in countless ways, such as its use of the “freedom” as a mantra -- debasing the word into little more than a verbal icon representing “our side” and “people like us” -- even as it dismantles every institution for has made freedom a reified and palpable tool of human life. All of the processes of citizen-empowered accountability, ranging from freedom of information to balance of powers, to press access, to secrecy policy, have been relentlessly suppressed -- doing it purportedly for the public good.

Or take the administration’s relentless insistence that its narrow victories at the polls - (under highly questionable circumstances) - nevertheless translate into utter and pure political mandate, on a winner-takes-all basis. Mandate to rule without accountability to a people who do not need information as much as they need protection during time of war.

(What war? Oh, but that’s another topic.)

A people who are allowed to vote, ineffectually, but who are better off not knowing.


==On Gerrymandering and Freedom==

Indeed, many aspects of freedom are under discussion in the news.

Of special note is an article that was recently published in the Wall Street Journal, having to do with a topic that I have weighed-in upon at great length, in my article, American Democracy: More Fragile Than We Think.

See: The Gerrymander Moment: Democrats discover this incumbent protection racket," in the Wall Street Journal.

One thing about this article is especially encouraging to me. At last someone else points out the aspect of this dismal plot that is most Constitutionally relevant. The aspect that most undermines the Founders’ intentions.

”Armed with these tools, incumbent politicians can design House districts that more or less guarantee their re-election short of some political tsunami. As a result, most races for the House--the body our Founders designed to most reflect changes in public opinion--are over long before the first vote is even cast. This is bad for democracy, and if liberals have suddenly figured this out we're glad to see it, whatever their partisan motives. “

Of course, the nation could be saved from this monstrous demolition of our right to legislative representation, at a stroke. If only the Supremes choose to act in service to the people and the Constitution. (Don’t bet on it!)

But even if this miracle happens, there will be much to discuss. For example, I do not like “impartial” commissions as a solution. A godawful bureaucracy in every state, rife with influence peddling, would only reduce the horror of gerrymandering to tolerable levels, at great cost. There are better options. In my article I offer an alternative that could solve the problem in a single sentence!

See more on Politics for the 21st Century.

and The Myth of Majority Rule.

==And Finally==

If some of you would like to see my ideas influencing a movement to reform the Libertarian movement go see: Libertarianism: Seeking a New Path.

These ruminations are actually far more general than you might expect, and not very specifically aimed at a libertarian audience. (The Reform LP group asked for a modified version for their site.) Here you'll find my best take on an alternative to the left right political axis, trying to overcome the faults of that egregious sin-against-thinking. In any event, it is encouraging to see a movement by modernist-pragmatists to shift the dogmatic romanticism of those currently controlling libertarianism. For such people to be anti-modernist is the worst hypocrisy imaginable.